Survive, Thrive, or Die (illegal, death, felons, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quick point - the "fortified village" post was in reference to the current rise in criminality, due to the collapse of the United Socialist States of America.
Since the beginning of the socialist safety net, in 1935, has crime gone down or up?
Are prison populations going down or up?
Did the "Great Society" eliminate poverty or institutionalize it?
I think that "egalitarian" / socialist society is not functioning as advertised.
Crime is going down. Prison populations are going up. Obviously there is not and has never been any correlation between the inception of a welfare state and crime. The entire welfare roll of this country amounts to ~1% of the population and ~50 Billion dollars worth of largesse. The top 1% of wealthiest Americans have unknown Trillions of dollars worth of wealth and only a very small fraction of that circulates in the U.S. economy.
The reason why you are preparing for the worst case scenario of civil violence breaking out in America is because people like yourself who represent a very large American demographic are unable to look the Devil in the eye and call him by name. Instead you invent scapegoats to vent your frustration onto. It would be somewhat funny if the situation were not so serious. What will it take to whack some sense into the very thick skulls of some of you? What lunacy to imagine that it is the welfare roll that is toppling America into the abyss of insolvency! An hours worth of fighting in Iraq costs as much as the entire Welfare budget for 2008.
Crime is going down. Prison populations are going up. Obviously there is not and has never been any correlation between the inception of a welfare state and crime. The entire welfare roll of this country amounts to ~1% of the population and ~50 Billion dollars worth of largesse. The top 1% of wealthiest Americans have unknown Trillions of dollars worth of wealth and only a very small fraction of that circulates in the U.S. economy.
I think you're mistaken about entitlements, by a large factor.
In fiscal year 2010, the federal government is projected to spend $3.6 trillion, amounting to 24 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
$715 billion for "Defense" / "Offense"
$708 billion for Social Security programs
$753 billion for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
$482 billion for "Safety Net"
$209 billion for "interest" payments on public debt
------
$2867 billion
The remaining $733 billion is divided among pensions, transportation, research, employee benefits, etc., etc.
US Welfare Budget for 2010 - Charts
$557.3 billion for welfare (Federal contribution) $762.3 billion for welfare (when combined with State and Local)
That's roughly 5% of the GDP for WELFARE (all sources combined).
U.S. welfare rolls increase modestly - UPI.com
WELFARE ROLL: 4 million received welfare checks in 2009
FOOD STAMPS: 37 million received food stamps in 2009
UNEMPLOYMENT: 9.1 million received unemployment benefits in 2009
Based on 308 million population, 1.2 % received Welfare.
If we deduct the welfare recipients from the food stamp rolls, there's an additional 10%.
Add in the unemployed, and that's another 3%, computing to 14.2% of the population.
Let's not forget that the bureaucracy takes a chunk out of the budget, to administer these programs.
FWIW - the "Trillions of wealth" allegedly belonging to the uber rich is denominated in "dollar bills", which, by law, have no par value. In the event of a "dollar bill" collapse, even Bill Gates will be "worth" very little, in empirical terms.
Remember, all "human resources" are at a minus 13.5 trillion DOLLARS (not dollar bills), thanks to FICA / Social Security.
(See legal definition for "contributor" - one who is equally liable for paying a claim).
The reason why you are preparing for the worst case scenario of civil violence breaking out in America is because people like yourself who represent a very large American demographic are unable to look the Devil in the eye and call him by name. Instead you invent scapegoats to vent your frustration onto. It would be somewhat funny if the situation were not so serious. What will it take to whack some sense into the very thick skulls of some of you? What lunacy to imagine that it is the welfare roll that is toppling America into the abyss of insolvency! An hours worth of fighting in Iraq costs as much as the entire Welfare budget for 2008.
I believe that the figures show a different situation.
2010 budget
$715 billion for "Defense" / "Offense" $762.3 billion for welfare (when combined with State and Local)
FWIW - the U.S. government went bankrupt in 1933.
The "dollar bill" has been underwritten by the millions of "contributors" via FICA, since 1935.
Technically speaking, "voluntary" participation is propping up the socialist system.
However, the day that 51% of Americans withdraw consent, the "dollar bill" will be undercapitalized and collapse, taking down the government with it.
In other words, when the Federal Reserve notes are only backed by 49% of the goods and services (if that), they will be insufficiently backed.
I suspect that such an event will be followed by a resignation en masse of the government, and emigration to countries that do not extradite to the U.S.A.
From the original post:
[] USA is about to enter a terminal collapse, due in part to an impossible to repay public debt, an interest burden that is ever rising, the drain of deficit spending, widespread rebellion against the imminent increase in tax burdens, restrictions on liberty, and unWar costs.
[] The aftermath, if nothing changes, will be the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, absent that "pesky" U.S. Constitution.
In plain English, we have Congress paying $209 billion for "interest" payments on public debt. But it is borrowing $1.5 trillion. In essence, Congress is paying past investors with "new" debt.
Remember, that's what Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing - in the private sector.
At some point, investors are going to balk at buying government bonds.
That is when the flying fecal flecks fan blades and flung afar.
When Congress can no longer borrow credit (no money was lent to Congress since 1933), those worthless IOUs (dollar bills) are going to need to be redeemed by YOUR wealth, property and labor. In short, TAX attack.
And if the recession / depression deepens, that will restrict tax revenues even more, while demands for assistance will grow. But there won't be any respite.
There are several variations that do not bode well for the people of these united States of America.
[] Break down in trade, especially international trade - which leaves America in need of over 50% of its petroleum.
[] Collapse of the "Dollar bill", which not only will affect trade, but wipe out "paper fortunes" of millions of Americans.
[] Interruption in resupply - from whatever cause - leaving people without fuel, power, food, medicine, etc, etc.
[] Breakdown in civil order, resulting in widespread chaos, and the establishment of "Gang" controlled areas (or other paramilitary forces). This will be coupled with looting of warehouses and other resources, causing even more suffering.
[] Natural disaster - stressing the "safety net" to the breaking point, and leaving large segments without assistance.
So, based on these 'cheery' scenarios, one would be wise to plan ahead. Think of the worst aspects of the Great Depression coupled with the worst aspects of wartime rationing. In short, if you don't have it, can't make it, you'll do without it.
For how long?
That's a good question.
1. Really? European union is "doing well"?
2. Why?
3. The facts contradict your conclusion.
No "citizen" in Europe absolutely owns anything. The State has a superior claim.
I stipulate that after 70 years of socialist propaganda, Americans wouldn't know the difference between absolute and qualified ownership.
The key to understanding is property rights - as in who owns you and yours.
MARXISM 101:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
But American law protects private property
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.
Capitalist Principles
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
A farmer who absolutely owns his farm is a true capitalist.
A farmer who does not, is a tenant.
A worker who absolutely owns the fruits of his labor is a true capitalist.
A worker who does not, is a serf.
"No one should suffer because they lack {fill in the blank}" should be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another, so that..." because slavery is not an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.
Since 1935, and "voluntary" socialism (via FICA), Americans surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property.
That is why the government asserts a superior claim to ALL goods and services, as well as imposes "safety rules" upon "its" chattel property - i.e., you.
Write a polite letter to your Congressman, and ask him to explain how YOUR property and labor became pledged as collateral on THEIR debt.
That's nonsense. The stuff I own, I own alone and I can do with it what I want. The only exceptions are:
a) land, which can be taken away from me if it is in the way of new infrastructure that is more important than me, and in this case I get more than adequate compensation
b) some of my stuff (lots of exceptions there that cannot be taken under any circumstances) can be taken away if I am in debt and creditors want their money back.
a) might be different from the US, but I support it as infrastructure can be more important to society as a whole than a piece of land.
Regarding b) Europe is even better than the US, the hurdles for someone's home being taken away are much higher over here.
That's nonsense. The stuff I own, I own alone and I can do with it what I want. The only exceptions are:
a) land, which can be taken away from me if it is in the way of new infrastructure that is more important than me, and in this case I get more than adequate compensation
b) some of my stuff (lots of exceptions there that cannot be taken under any circumstances) can be taken away if I am in debt and creditors want their money back.
a) might be different from the US, but I support it as infrastructure can be more important to society as a whole than a piece of land.
Regarding b) Europe is even better than the US, the hurdles for someone's home being taken away are much higher over here.
You pay rent to a government agency every year, for any real estate you own. If you owned it you would not be paying rent on it. If you don't pay your rent, your evicted by your local government.
Taxing things you already own and have paid taxes on it at the time of sale, is theft.
You pay rent to a government agency every year, for any real estate you own. If you owned it you would not be paying rent on it. If you don't pay your rent, your evicted by your local government.
Taxing things you already own and have paid taxes on it at the time of sale, is theft.
If I remember correctly, you don't pay taxes on the land as such, but on the way it is used. This shows for instance in the rate depending on whether you use that real estate for agriculture, housing, commerce etc.
It is still your land.
Most countries also have a car tax, that people pay for registering and/or operating a car. The car as such is still yours.
You know, I guess a lot of people have the wrong idea about the word 'own'. It does not mean that just because you pay for something, that something is removed from society and its interests. Like with everything else in life, owning stuff is relative, just like freedom of speech, movement and what not. No man is an island...
A nation is based on the assumption that its territory is the property of all its citizens, it belongs to all. When people buy land, they buy the right to use a defined piece of land and exclude others from using that land as long as they pay their taxes. It does not mean that the country gives up that piece of land for good. Otherwise you could start your own country within your country, which however you can't. Nor can you do everything you want on your land. Society can restrict the way you use your land.
Last edited by Neuling; 12-23-2010 at 12:18 PM..
Reason: typo
I believe that the figures show a different situation.
2010 budget
$715 billion for "Defense" / "Offense" $762.3 billion for welfare (when combined with State and Local)
And that $762.3 billion simply goes back to the economy every time welfare recepients spend it on rent and food. Landlords need some of that government subsidy, you know, so they can help enrich the economy, too. Since it represents taxes flowing back to the economy, I don't see spending on welfare so bad as long as we understand there's only so much tax money available for it.
One can complain about the hugeness of defense spending, but a number of towns depend on it as the basis for their economies, and so probably explaining to a large extent why cutting defense spending is so difficult and resistive, in other words, survive, thrive, or die, the title of this thread.
Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 12-23-2010 at 12:16 PM..
That's nonsense. The stuff I own, I own alone and I can do with it what I want.
Oh really?
If you believe that, no use trying to use facts to dissuade you.
Try and travel in an unregistered automobile that fails to comply with regulations.
Try and build a house and occupy it without permits. Or refuse to comply with codes, zoning, covenants or restrictions (that may apply).
Pay attention to the confiscation of property without just compensation, when government "arrests" property. Or "confiscates" property of alleged felons. (Read the legal notices for "captures" under Admiralty/Maritime rules)
Since 1935, enumerated Americans do not absolutely own anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The only exceptions are:
a) land, which can be taken away from me if it is in the way of new infrastructure that is more important than me, and in this case I get more than adequate compensation
b) some of my stuff (lots of exceptions there that cannot be taken under any circumstances) can be taken away if I am in debt and creditors want their money back.
a) might be different from the US, but I support it as infrastructure can be more important to society as a whole than a piece of land.
Regarding b) Europe is even better than the US, the hurdles for someone's home being taken away are much higher over here.
Land, if held with qualified ownership (estate) can be taken from you, for failure to pay ad valorem taxes on it, for satisfaction of a civil judgment, for failure to pay socialist taxes, etc, etc.
Land, if held with absolute ownership (private property) is not subject to ad valorem taxes and cannot be taken from you, period. The sole exception is for public use (for the good of all) - and with JUST compensation paid (in lawful money). Since 1933, no lawful money has circulated - which coincidentally matches well with the surrender of property rights via FICA. In short, since 1933, no "takings" under eminent domain have involved private property.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Thought to ponder -
If absolute ownership never existed, why bother defining it in an American legal reference?
But if it does exist, then you have to determine when and how you surrendered your birthright to absolutely own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
